XII. An Automated, Contract-Driven Military

Please, this is a WHACK-O Theory!

Currently, Israel is considering subsequent courses of action with respect to Palestine.  One course would be to occupy Gaza.  Now, I believe the notion of occupying another country is passé.  The Romans were wrong; and it eventually undid them.  What the US military has gone to, in my opinion, is using primarily the US Army as a training force, to establish an indigenous military under the governmental structures already in place in the particular country, e.g., Iraq, which meets the US military's functional specifications.

But in point of fact, the US military, acting on behalf of the President and Congress, could contract out to any private or governmental military to provide protection and security and military might in some particular country for which there is need.  Moreover, various units within multi-branches could compete for a contract to supply military services.

In the case of the Palestinians, Israel could either develop a Palestinian military and contract with it to do military functions or find some organization or standing established military to provide such services.

A.  Contracts for military services to be rendered and military objectives to be met

As mentioned above, even within the US military itself, various branches and units could be identified and contracts from the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff could be drawn up in which terms  established relating to the contractual goals and the amounts of money that would be agreed to by contractual parties.

This recommendation follows on the heels of a very successful program to use civilians as contractors on military projects in both Afghanistan and Iraqi wars.  Because the terms of the contract spell out what is required of the contractor and what support and benefits he will receive as he proceeds  to fulfill his duties, there is a measure to determine the success of the contractual obligations of each party.  The recommendation is to extend this contractual format to the entire range of military activities.

B.  That the military should become fully automated means that there are but tactical uses of ground and air and sea personnel in combat situations.        .

The idea of a pinpoint strike of fighting units to make is the driving concept.  Other than that, the military is in an auxiliary but controlling posture--wielding automated machinery to achieve its goals. 

To make this idea feasible is in my mind to re-position our thinking of command centers.  Because the foot soldier is no longer the essence of a military thrust in battle, the command centers can be mobile only in the sense that the entire center is moved about.  No longer the army but the navy is to house the command centers for its strike forces.  And, these forces are primarily and fundamentally automated--involving computerized planning and execution with pinpoint accuracy, supported as necessary by troops commitment in battle.

Specifically, as drones are further developed and utilized in military combat and for pinpoint strikes, the fighter jet should be less depended upon.  This one change should reduce the costs of the air force immeasurably.

The ship can move about, carrying with it the hosts of computerized equipment necessary for automated warfare.  In the case of the Army, such whole scale  movement is awkward, even if possible.

I think the Israelis have been using this concept to a limited degree when they made its navy the overall command center for its strikes into Gaza.


-----------------------------------------------------------
P.S.  I'm of the lineage of the Polish General-King Jon Sobieski.  I think the family has always retained an interest in military matters since.